Not to mention she's 80 friggin years old and probably not as obsessed with nolan films as some on here.

Also, all this "they don't understand the characters they played" comments are comical. Adam West's Batman is STILL then most comic accurate portrayal of the character, and people would know that if they read a Batman comic before Frank Miller started writing it. Adam West's Batman was the Silver Age Batman to a T. Ward, Newmar, Meredith, Gorshin, and Romero did excellent jobs in their respective roles as well. Just because they're not gushing about whatever post 1985 Batman comic they read does not mean they didnt understand the characters they played, and their performances are obvious proof of that.

Exactly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shauner111

Adam Wests is still the most comic accurate portrayal of the character? Yeak ok....

Yeah, he is. Even BTAS made more radical changes. Who is Andrea Beaumont, the first true love of Bruce Wayne? Joker was a member of the Sal Valestra mob? Harvey Dent and Bruce Wayne were best buds? etc.

The 1960's show was accurate in just about every way to the era it represented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pfeiffer-Pfan

Bob Kane wasn't insulted when the show was on the air and he was raking in the money...

In fact I wouldn't listen to Bob Kane about most things.

Exactly. Bob Kane was nothing but a plagiarist who stole all of Bill Finger's creative credit.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

Nolan's Batman trilogy may have been darker, but it did not exactly nail the original spirit of Batman as a character. Nolan's franchise was about a man who, as an adult, decided he wanted to stop organized crime, and who was willing to give up that fight when he'd beaten it, not about a man who dedicated his entire life to fighting crime from a young age. That's an important distinction to make when discussing the original "spirit" of Batman as a character. If anything, Nolan's franchise has far more in common storywise with the 70's and 80's and YEAR ONE era versions of the character, with a dash of THE LONG HALLOWEEN and trace elements of major modern stories like KNIGHTFALL, NO MAN'S LAND, etc.

Quote:

I would argue that BTAS is a more comic accurate than the 60s series, because the 60s show represented the Silver Age but BTAS encapsulated pretty much all the eras up to that point, including the early Kane/Finger stuff, with the art deco style and the use of some of the classic Joker stories from that era. It used many specific comic storylines as a reference for episodes, and Denny O'Neil wrote the Ra's al Ghul episodes, etc. And when the Timm/Dini-verse moved into Justice League, that is where they got more Silver Age-y.

Exactly, and BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES and TNBA also incorporated elements from the various films, and went on to influence the comic books themselves with regard to designs and new characters, locales, etc. Though it should be noted that the original Batman TV series also used quite a few comic book stories as source material, much like LOIS AND CLARK did in the early 90's.

I think people look at West's BATMAN and yes, it's campy, but it is not a blatant parody of the source material. It's a satire, with some elements of parody. For all that, it's largely written and played straight, which is why it works as well as it does. Its just campy as hell because of the content. If you read a Batman comic from about the mid forties to the sixties, the show pretty much nailed the tone, the story approach, and the characterization of Batman. Actually, the show presented a fairly grounded version of what the comics were, because it largely ignored a lot of the wilder science fiction/fantasy stories that were being told in the comics at the time.

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night

I think the issue here is that while the 60s show was a spot-on representation of a particular era of Batman, most fans wouldn't call it definitive by any stretch. And "most comic-accurate" has a bit of a connotation of "definitive" on here. The vast majority of fans prefer Batman to be a creature of the night. It's what makes sense for the character given his pulpy influences like The Shadow, it fits with the original idea behind his creation as a darker counterpoint to Superman, and it's in keeping with a man deciding to adopt the mantle of a nocturnal animal. There's a lot of room to play around there if you stay within that general realm, as Burton, BTAS and Nolan have shown.

Things like the Silver Age comics, the 60s show and Batman: Brave and the Bold show that you can do a 180 from that and still have something entertaining. Part of what makes Batman such a modern icon is how you're introduced to him at such a young age and everyone grows up with their own conception of what Batman is.

Id rather watch the series than read the comics from that era because it wasnt as fantastical as the comics were. But Batman was intended to be dark and mainly a character who operates on his own. That's the true spirit of the character. Im not talking about big details in the writing. There's different interpretations as to how he's been written over the decades. But the original essence of Batman is that he was dark and a loner and therefore i see Batman 89 and Nolans trilogy and BTAS as more true to the characters creation than what the comics turned out to be. (As the 40s progressed into the 50s/60s).

He wasnt written so he can team with several super-powered beings in taking down aliens. He wasnt written so he can always fight side by side with a child side-kick at all times. He wasnt written to be like Superman in tone. He was written as a reaction to the lighter Superman.

To me that's the essence, in its simplest form without getting into details.

I think it's pretty safe to say that Batman is a continually self-improving franchise.

It's beautiful how Burton can spin inspiration from TKJ and the original books, which in turn inspires BTAS, which in turn inspires the books again, all of which inspire Nolan, who in turn inspires the books again.

I think the issue here is that while the 60s show was a spot-on representation of a particular era of Batman, most fans wouldn't call it definitive by any stretch. And "most comic-accurate" has a bit of a connotation of "definitive" on here.

Which is all well and good...but if someone misinterprets a pretty clear statement, that really has no bearing on the accuracy of the statement itself.

West didn't say "definitive", and neither have most of the people here stating that the live-action BATMAN TV series is the most faithful to its source material.

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night

I think it's pretty safe to say that Batman is a continually self-improving franchise.

It's beautiful how Burton can spin inspiration from TKJ and the original books, which in turn inspires BTAS, which in turn inspires the books again, all of which inspire Nolan, who in turn inspires the books again.

Oh yes, there's a difference between definitive and most accurate. BTAS manages to encapsulate more eras of Batman comics, so in that regard it's more definitive.

Having a 100+ episodes and several spin off movies helps do that

Yup.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Guard

Which is all well and good...but if someone misinterprets a pretty clear statement, that really has no bearing on the accuracy of the statement itself.

West didn't say "definitive", and neither have most of the people here stating that the live-action BATMAN TV series is the most faithful to its source material.

And yup, I know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustyCage

I think it's pretty safe to say that Batman is a continually self-improving franchise.

It's beautiful how Burton can spin inspiration from TKJ and the original books, which in turn inspires BTAS, which in turn inspires the books again, all of which inspire Nolan, who in turn inspires the books again.

Like I said, anyone who has actually read a Batman comic from the 50's-60's would know exactly what I'm talking about, especially since the show adapted comic stories from that time period and even had Bill Finger write some episodes.

Well that era is not how the creator intended Batman to be and he was only made that way to be more "friendly". Which in turn made some "people" question his "relationship" with Robin. I wouldn't really call that victory in the most faithful adaptation category. Sounds more like the Batman & Robin category.

The creator of Batman had Batman as a trigger happy killer. When Alfred was first introduced he was an amateur detective. Catwoman was costume less cat burglar called The Cat. There was no Batcave or Wayne Manor either.

Things change.

Quote:

he was only made that way to be more "friendly". Which in turn made some "people" question his "relationship" with Robin. I wouldn't really call that victory in the most faithful adaptation category. Sounds more like the Batman & Robin category.

There was no big outcry about any of that. The 1966 Batman show even boosted Batman's comic book sales.

It was hands down the most faithful adaption. No question about it. It was the comic books of that era brought to life.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

The creator of Batman had Batman as a trigger happy killer. When Alfred was first introduced he was an amateur detective. Catwoman was costume less cat burglar called The Cat. There was no Batcave or Wayne Manor either.

Things change.

Well, clearly they didn't change for the better because that era of comics sucks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

There was no big outcry about any of that. The 1966 Batman show even boosted Batman's comic book sales.

You are very wrong about that. There was huge outcry over Robin being in those comics. Parents didn't think a kid shoud be living with Wayne, who was unmarried, and running around fighting crime. There are fact all over the internet to back this up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

It was hands down the most faithful adaption. No question about it. It was the comic books of that era brought to life.

And why act that way? I never said YOU were WRONG. It's not about being right or wrong. You like that era? That's fine. You don't share my opinon? That's fine too. Just don't take things so damn personal. This is the kind of child nonsense that makes this place a joke. Grow up.

And yet, the creator of Batman wrote and drew a version of Batman that was fairly similar, actually. No, Batman wasn't like this when he was first created, or for the first year or two of his comics, but as has been pointed out, things change, and by the late fifties and 60's, the TV show wasn't far off what the comics had become. Kane, Finger and others added various elements to the mythology over the years.

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night

Well, clearly they didn't change for the better because that era of comics sucks.

For you.

Quote:

You are very wrong about that. There was huge outcry over Robin being in those comics. Parents didn't think a kid shoud be living with Wayne, who was unmarried, and running around fighting crime. There are fact all over the internet to back this up.

Then back up what you say. Lets see some links to this "huge" outcry.

Quote:

And that adaption sucks.

Again for you.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

You're incredible, you know that? You act like you know everything there is to know about Batman and yet you've never heard of this? The outcry created that era of comics and in turn the 60's TV show. The publishers were forced to make things different out of pressure. That's not change, it's censorship and it killed the essence of the character.

This is always the case with you. "PROOF OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!" In the furture if you really want to know then search yourself. I don't have anything to prove here and quite frankly I'm tired of this kind of behavior from you.